Comcast may make $60B bid for Fox assets if AT&T is allowed to buy Time Warner.

Share this story

Comcast has lined up $60 billion in financing in order to make a hostile bid for the 21st Century Fox media assets that Disney is attempting to buy, according to news reports.

Comcast is waiting to find out whether AT&T will be allowed to buy Time Warner Inc. before moving forward with the bid for Fox assets, reports say. "Comcast is getting the pieces in place to make a hostile bid for 21st Century Fox's entertainment assets should it choose to do so," a Wall Street Journalarticle said.

The Walt Disney Company already struck a $52.4 billion all-stock deal to buy various 21st Century Fox properties. That includes Fox's stake in Hulu, the popular video streaming service. Comcast would try to buy the same assets that Disney is attempting to acquire. Disney, Fox, and Comcast each own 30 percent of Hulu; Time Warner owns the other 10 percent. The Disney/Fox purchase announcement in December noted that Disney would gain a "controlling interest" in Hulu by purchasing Fox assets. Comcast would receive the same controlling interest in Hulu if it can pry the Fox assets away from Disney.

Comcast/NBC merger commitments expire

Comcast gained its minority stake in Hulu when it purchased NBCUniversal in 2011. Regulators worried that the nation's largest cable company would prevent the online streaming service from becoming a viable competitor to cable TV. As a result, merger conditions imposed by the Federal Communications Commission and Department of Justice prohibited Comcast from "exercis[ing] any right to influence the conduct or operation of Hulu."

"We do not believe that Comcast-NBCU has the same incentives as pre-transaction NBCU to facilitate the ongoing development of Hulu, so we require Comcast-NBCU to hold its interest in Hulu solely as an economic interest," the FCC said at the time. The FCC also required Comcast to renew NBC's programming agreements with Hulu.

Further Reading

But the NBC merger conditions were scheduled to remain in place for only seven years and expire completely on September 1. The expiration of the Comcast/NBC merger conditions and a purchase of Fox's stake in Hulu would thus let Comcast control the online video service's operations.

Obama administration regulators also prevented Comcast from buying Time Warner Cable, saying that Comcast could use its increased size to stifle the competition that online video streaming services pose to cable TV.

Comcast operates the nation's largest home broadband network. Because the FCC is now repealing net neutrality rules, Comcast could use its network to give Hulu advantages over other online streaming services. For example, Comcast could make Hulu work better than other online video services on its network or exempt Hulu from data caps without triggering an FCC investigation.

Hulu says it has 20 million US subscribers. The company offers on-demand streaming plans starting at $7.99 a month and live TV service starting at $39.99 a month.

Fox declined previous Comcast offer

Fox previously "turned down a Comcast stock offer in the low $60 billion range before sealing the Disney deal" because of regulatory concerns, the Wall Street Journal article said.

Comcast could put in a lower bid than last time "if it pursues a hostile effort," the Journal wrote. "The cable company believes an all-cash offer would be compelling to most Fox shareholders."

Separately, Comcast and Fox are each trying to purchase Sky, the European pay-TV company.

Comcast awaits AT&T/Time Warner ruling

The Department of Justice sued AT&T in November to prevent it from buying Time Warner. A trial was held, and a judge's decision is expected by June 12.

A ruling in favor of AT&T would presumably improve Comcast's chances of buying another entertainment company.

From the Fox/Disney merger announcement, here's a list of assets that Fox is planning to sell:

21st Century Fox's film and television studios, cable entertainment networks, and international TV businesses

Popular entertainment properties including X-Men, Avatar, The Simpsons, FX Networks, and National Geographic

Fox Sports Regional Networks

Extensive international properties, including Star in India and Fox's 39-percent ownership of Sky across Europe

The deal between Fox and either Disney or Comcast would not include the Fox Broadcasting network and stations, Fox News Channel, Fox Business Network, FS1, FS2, or the Big Ten Network. Instead of being sold, those properties would be combined "into a newly listed company that will be spun off to its shareholders," the Fox/Disney announcement from December said.

We contacted Comcast for comment and will update this story if we get a response.

Mergers are never good for the American consumer. Even when (and if) they start out with benefits, those benefits are quickly eroded, and the ultimate, cumulative cost is far higher than any benefits originally derived.

I've got a crazy idea... How about instead of shitty companies using their money to buy other companies, they use that money to make their own company less shitty.

There's no incentive to do this. Because executives often have quite a bit of stock holdings, they are enticed to drive up the stock value as high as they can. The easiest way to do this is to grow the company, which is most easily accomplished by eating up their smaller rivals.

It's kind of crazy that regulators have a 7-year time limit on these restrictions. It's an absurdly low cost to impose on a company that is only growing bigger.

Smaller, Comcast is shrinking it's numbers show that cable subscribers are decreasing while the costs (affiliate fees always go up) go up. It's when they try to merge with Verizon you will really have to worry.

Mergers are never good for the American consumer. Even when (and if) they start out with benefits, those benefits are quickly eroded, and the ultimate, cumulative cost is far higher than any benefits originally derived.

I'd never use the term never. If a dying company is snatched up by a company that it can strengthen it long term to compete with the two bigger. I'd consider that valid.....vs a company just going under which I suspect Sprint will be in 10 years. They are adding customers but at the cost of some seriously sweet deals for customers but its impacting Sprints ability to make money and pay off their 30+ billion in debt.

Using the term always is a black and white term. Reality doesn't function in black and white.

Good lord. Is there no limit to the size and reach of these companies?

One company should not be allowed to own large portions of news, entertainment, internet, and phone service. About the only industries not represented are banking and energy production. Hell, in many locations Comcast doesn't really have any competition as an ISP. In my location if I want more than a 25 Mbps connection, I can choose Comcast or I can choose Comcast.

How about spend that $60B and make a new movie/tv studio that makes new content, not just a yearly dose of X Men, or another Fantastic 4 reboot?

Comcast already own NBCUniversal and are making new content all the time. Buying Fox gets them more of Hulu all Fox's international stuff like SKY where Comcast isn't a player and lots of older IP as a base for Hulu to go against Netflix.

Fox's film and cable channel stuff is not the point it's for older content for Hulu or another streaming service if Disney won't sell it's share of Hulu and international markets. Europe's SKY is half the Fox price alone.

Mergers are never good for the American consumer. Even when (and if) they start out with benefits, those benefits are quickly eroded, and the ultimate, cumulative cost is far higher than any benefits originally derived.

I'd never use the term never. If a dying company is snatched up by a company that it can strengthen it long term to compete with the two bigger. I'd consider that valid.....vs a company just going under which I suspect Sprint will be in 10 years. They are adding customers but at the cost of some seriously sweet deals for customers but its impacting Sprints ability to make money and pay off their 30+ billion in debt.

Using the term always is a black and white term. Reality doesn't function in black and white.

That's a false equivalency. What we're seeing today is viable companies being gobbled up by monopolies. Remember Toys'R'Us? This kinds of BS needs to stop. It's making us all poorer. Monopolies need to be stopped. If our legislators were doing their jobs they'd step up to the plate. Instead they're defending these practices.

Mergers are never good for the American consumer. Even when (and if) they start out with benefits, those benefits are quickly eroded, and the ultimate, cumulative cost is far higher than any benefits originally derived.

I'd never use the term never. If a dying company is snatched up by a company that it can strengthen it long term to compete with the two bigger. I'd consider that valid.....vs a company just going under which I suspect Sprint will be in 10 years. They are adding customers but at the cost of some seriously sweet deals for customers but its impacting Sprints ability to make money and pay off their 30+ billion in debt.

Using the term always is a black and white term. Reality doesn't function in black and white.

That's a false equivalency. What we're seeing today is viable companies being gobbled up by monopolies. Remember Toys'R'Us? This kinds of BS needs to stop. It's making us all poorer. Monopolies need to be stopped. If our legislators were doing their jobs they'd step up to the plate. Instead they're defending these practices.

There's no false equivalency there. He's just providing an example of why "never" is too black and white of a term to use in almost every circumstance, and it's a totally valid point. His example was not made to be equivalent to the current circumstances.

Mergers are never good for the American consumer. Even when (and if) they start out with benefits, those benefits are quickly eroded, and the ultimate, cumulative cost is far higher than any benefits originally derived.

I'd never use the term never. If a dying company is snatched up by a company that it can strengthen it long term to compete with the two bigger. I'd consider that valid.....vs a company just going under which I suspect Sprint will be in 10 years. They are adding customers but at the cost of some seriously sweet deals for customers but its impacting Sprints ability to make money and pay off their 30+ billion in debt.

Using the term always is a black and white term. Reality doesn't function in black and white.

That's a false equivalency. What we're seeing today is viable companies being gobbled up by monopolies. Remember Toys'R'Us? This kinds of BS needs to stop. It's making us all poorer. Monopolies need to be stopped. If our legislators were doing their jobs they'd step up to the plate. Instead they're defending these practices.

There is no monopoly in entertainment you only need to look at TV ratings lower than ever take last night most watched program was 'The Voice' with a 1.4/6 rating with 8.3 million total viewers so 98.6% of those aged between 18-49 in the USA did something else or 97.45% of all US citizens.

Antitrust laws are not only dead, they are sealed in a metal container and are being dropped off a boat into the Challenger Deep.

“There’s no point in acting surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for 50 of your Earth years, so you’ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it’s far too late to start making a fuss about it now. …" -- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Mergers are never good for the American consumer. Even when (and if) they start out with benefits, those benefits are quickly eroded, and the ultimate, cumulative cost is far higher than any benefits originally derived.

I'd never use the term never. If a dying company is snatched up by a company that it can strengthen it long term to compete with the two bigger. I'd consider that valid.....vs a company just going under which I suspect Sprint will be in 10 years. They are adding customers but at the cost of some seriously sweet deals for customers but its impacting Sprints ability to make money and pay off their 30+ billion in debt.

Using the term always is a black and white term. Reality doesn't function in black and white.

That's a false equivalency. What we're seeing today is viable companies being gobbled up by monopolies. Remember Toys'R'Us? This kinds of BS needs to stop. It's making us all poorer. Monopolies need to be stopped. If our legislators were doing their jobs they'd step up to the plate. Instead they're defending these practices.

There's no false equivalency there. He's just providing an example of why "never" is too black and white of a term to use in almost every circumstance, and it's a totally valid point. His example was not made to be equivalent to the current circumstances.

His example was false. He described a company on desperate grounds seeking a buyout as in a 'rescue'. When did this happen last?? Most businesses in dire straits will seek bankruptcy, form a new enterprise and sell old assets to the new entity for pennies on the dollar. Hostile takeovers and buyouts by monopolies are destructive for all consumers. They've never produced positive outcomes. They reduce the number of businesses in the economy, raise prices while reducing quality service. Pick up a book and read it. Remember the financial collapse? Remember the term too big to fail? Let's stop this insanity and break these institutions up.

Good lord. Is there no limit to the size and reach of these companies?

One company should not be allowed to own large portions of news, entertainment, internet, and phone service. About the only industries not represented are banking and energy production. Hell, in many locations Comcast doesn't really have any competition as an ISP. In my location if I want more than a 25 Mbps connection, I can choose Comcast or I can choose Comcast.

The absence of banking and energy production is because those industries are currently aligning with pharma and insurance conglomerates. Once the consolidation has been finalized, that newly birthed megalith will summarily assimilate Comcast, Spectrum, Cox and Disney, along with any other intriguing detritus and flotsam that happen to be interesting at the time.

These partners have already agreed upon their future branding, which they believe fully represents and embodies their ascendant ownership of all humankind: Cthulhu Consolidated Corporation.

(Because CCC maintains a warm & fuzzy phonetic association with Hulu and it opens up some really cool graphic design possibilities for the corporate logo; stuff that'll look great on everything from polo shirts to their ominously towering World Domination HQ building. But not to worry; Comcast personnel will occupy all of the really key management roles.)